Posted on 10/13/2004 1:31:31 PM PDT by scottybk
"It's hard to believe that someone as smart as O'Reilly could be stupid enough to keep after a female after one or two rebuffs"
---Didn't you read her statement? Obviously O'Falafel likes to be rebuffed over and over with loofah's LOL
If there was no truth in the woman's accusations, O'Reilly would have added a defamation count, for sure. Her stuff sounds like she has tapes and was looking for a pay-off.
I also agree with you that O'Reilly is a tendentious blow-hard whom I can barely listen to.
What is it going to take to break this poisonous political atmosphere? It was like this at the beginning of the 19th century, and only improved during the 'Era of Good Feelings'. Hmmmm
And this is an admission of rape because??? Kobe was an idiot and that idiocy cost him tens of millions of dollars. That, however, does not rise to rape without evidence that proves rape beyond a reasonable doubt.
Since the MSM and the DNC wants so badly to take Fox down, maybe it is not such a very smart thing on Fox's part to have so many democrats running around Fox.
I speculate that she didn't rebuff him. She may have even "smiled" or "unh-huh'd" from time to time, to make him think she was at least listening. My guess was that her motivation was to either get money, or bring him down a peg or two. Dislike and hate are powerful motivators for some people.
IOW, I don't think this is about the money. This is about power, and she is trying to assert something over him.
Take it from any angle; The Daily Show, The Crossfire Punks, Dem Spinmeisters, Soros, etc., they will not let go of this. To the Left, FOX represents the Right. It's hay making time for them.
That being said, O'Reilly needs to be taken off the air. I will never look at a loofah the same way again.
O'Falafel--good one :-))
Sorry if this is a duplicate post; internet difficulties.
With regard to your claim the harrasment plaintiff didn't plead all the elecments - isn't the relative to the case law in the jurisdiction in question - here, New York?
I'm not pretending that I know much about this area of the law; perhaps there are commonalities in the common-law of the states such that one can be confident that the elements of the "hostile environment" brand of sexual harrassment are not met here according to New York law.
One can be a journalist and not be a newsman. O has NEVER claimed to be a newsman, in fact, he states unequivocally that he is NOT.
By what I read on smoking gun didn't seem too pithy! haha I knew he had sexual perversions! All he does is talk about sex. It's why he goes after rappers so hard. He fears they are getting it and he is not! This is no surprise to me.
One of this lawyers previous clients got caught arranging the placement of fake emails up on the cooporate network inorder to improve his case.
There have already been many October suprises. It's just that none of them have been very good for our side.
I have a question re settlement negotiations: At the time they 'offered to settle' they had not (a) identified O'Reilly by name, or (b) given fox a list of exactly what was being alleged, or (c) filed their complaint. How can those be considered settlement negotiations for purposes of Rule 608?
Hard to keep up with all the posts, but I just read a New York Times article about the suit O'Reilly filed. The article identifies O'Reilly as a "conservative" talk show host.
O'Reilly is no conservative, and he of course vehemently rejects the label. So how does the Times conclude that he is? Do they have their own criteria? I'm curious.
Oh, and if Al Franken was hit with a similar suit, what would be the odds the Times would label him as a "liberal" radio show host?
You got it. It will take the other issues off the screen and soak up the airtime here just two weeks before the election while (they hope) it will drain off a couple percent of the voters away from 'the right'.
Three birds with one stone: Bush, O'Reilly, FOX
an illustration of the fact that men dont hire prostitutes because prostitutes give them sex. men hire prostitutes because prostitutes leave after giving them sex.
still, a guy will go for convenient illicit sex before risk-free illicit sex in most cases.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.